McMahon v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2:16-cv-01459

In April 2005 McMahon executed a $416,600 note secured by a deed of trust on 304 Seawind Drive, Vallejo; he defaulted in 2007 and a notice of default was recorded in 2010.
McMahon has submitted multiple loan-modification applications; SPS invited a fifth application April 26, 2016; McMahon mailed an application June 20, 2016 and supplied additional documents June 22, 2016.
SPS sent a June 20, 2016 letter acknowledging a request for mortgage assistance and stating no available options; it is unclear whether that letter was a denial of the June 20 application.
A trustee’s sale was scheduled for June 29, 2016; McMahon sought an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the foreclosure under California Civil Code § 2923.6 (HBOR).
The court considered the Rule 65 standard for TROs and preliminary injunctions and, based on the limited record, granted a 14-day TRO prohibiting the foreclosure sale and set a schedule for a preliminary injunction hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether last-minute TRO was barred by undue delay	McMahon presented pressing facts and acted when sale was imminent	Defendants argued Local Rule 231(b) and alleged undue delay	Court declined to deny solely on delay; exercised discretion and proceeded
Whether HBOR (§ 2923.6) bars sale while a complete modification application is pending	McMahon: his June 20–22 submission was a complete application, so trustee sale cannot proceed	SPS: June 20 letter may have been a denial; if so, HBOR’s 30-day appeal period applies	Court: unresolved factual question but if letter was not a denial, or sale occurred within 30 days of a denial, McMahon likely to succeed on HBOR claim
Irreparable harm from allowing sale to proceed	Loss of home constitutes irreparable injury	Economic harm to servicer from temporary delay	Court: loss of residence is irreparable; balances in favor of McMahon
Whether bond should be required for TRO	McMahon sought relief; bond would burden him	SPS would incur costs if enjoined	Court exercised discretion to require no bond for the TRO period; to be revisited at preliminary injunction stage

Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (sets preliminary injunction factors in Ninth Circuit)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions requires likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (same standards apply to TROs and preliminary injunctions)
Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (ex parte TROs appropriate only to prevent irreparable harm until a hearing)
Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) (district court discretion to set amount of security bond)
Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (loss of real property interest can constitute irreparable injury)